Gujarat HC abates pending cases, upholds regularisation of land transfers under 2026 Fragmentation Act amendment

The petitioners challenged the order dated 24 February 2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), in Revision Application No. 5 of 2010, concerning proceedings initiated under the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”) against a land transaction.

The petitioners relied on a sale deed executed on 28 April 2003, contending that the transaction fell within the period covered by the subsequent statutory amendment.

During the hearing, the State produced the notification dated 14 July 2026 introducing amendments to Sections 5 and 9 of the Fragmentation Act, including Section 9(4), which provided for deemed regularisation of specified transfers or partitions and abatement of pending proceedings.

The State sought remand to the competent authority to determine whether the transaction was covered by the amended provision, whereas the petitioners sought direct abatement of the proceedings.

The Court also noted that the transaction was bona fide and that the original landowners had received the consideration, leaving any separate grievance to be pursued through appropriate civil remedies.

1. Whether the petitioners’ sale transaction dated 28 April 2003, allegedly contrary to the Fragmentation Act, was covered by the amended Section 9(4) and consequently stood deemed regularised without penalty or premium?

2. Whether the pending proceedings and the impugned SSRD order were required to be remanded for fresh consideration or stood abated by operation of Section 9(4)?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 300A of the Constitution and applied the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

The Court relied principally on amended Section 5(4), empowering the State Government to declare standard areas for classes of land, and Section 9(4), which provides that a transfer or partition contrary to the Fragmentation Act made on or after 29 January 1948 and on or before 31 March 2026 shall be deemed regularised without penalty or premium and that all pending proceedings before any officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition shall abate.

The Court further applied the principle stated in Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier, 2025 INSC 771, that remand is not routine and should not be ordered where it serves no useful purpose or would unnecessarily prolong litigation.

The Court found that the sale deed dated 28 April 2003 fell within the temporal scope of Section 9(4), which covered transactions made between 29 January 1948 and 31 March 2026.

Since the amended provision expressly deemed such transfers regularised and directed that pending proceedings abate, no further factual determination by the revenue authority was necessary.

Remanding the matter would therefore serve no useful purpose and would create multiplicity and prolongation of proceedings, contrary to the principle in Peter Augustine.

The Court also considered the bona fide nature of the transaction and the fact that the original landowners had accepted the consideration; any independent civil dispute was left open to be pursued through appropriate legal remedies.

Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners stood abated and were deemed regularised without levy of penalty or premium.

The impugned SSRD order and related orders were quashed and set aside; the petition was allowed, the Rule was made absolute, and direct service was permitted.